Why do you purposely misrepresent what I said? Anyone that can read English above a 5th grade level would understand that I said no such thing.

I am talking specifically about cattle. You dishonestly bring in all animals. Why do you feel the need to do that?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

Then there's really no reason to keep it a secret now. As I said, I’ve never seen any research by which one can defend meat-eating among humans. You should present whatever research you are referring to.

BTW, you didn’t note any disagreement with any of these statements:

All the research points in the opposite direction, toward a diet heavy in plant foods as being the healthiest for humans, not a diet heavy in animal products. . . In fact, we know that eating the standard American diet, which consists of only 40% meat, is horribly unhealthy for humans compared to a vegetarian diet.

And you didn’t respond to this question:

If humans were biologically adapted for a diet that consisted of any significant amount of meat, it would be a complete aberration among the apes. Correct? One just doesn't see such aberrations in the animal kingdom, does one?

Actually, I guess that’s two questions. Why don’t you address those questions before you present the evidence that you think endorses human meat-eating? Doing so might help inform you in the other question about the research.

I provided the numerous vitamins and proteins that one gets from meat, some of which, can't be gotten from a plant-based diet

How about naming those “numerous vitamins and proteins” that one can only get from animal flesh?

Don't have to. Those claiming other than what is medically and scientifically agreed upon are the ones that carry the burden of proof. So far science, and medically trained dieticians, agree that reasonable amounts of meat is OK.

If humans were biologically adapted for a diet that consisted of any significant amount of meat, it would be a complete aberration among the apes. Correct?

Incorrect. Each species has it's own evolutionary path. It's obvious that we are not herbivores; our teeth and digestive system show that we are not exclusively herbivores. It's disingenuous to bring in other animals and compare us to them and then to claim that a nebulous "significant amount" of meat is what we are supposed to be eating.

Not one person in this thread, or any other thread on this topic, has said we should be eating huge amounts of meat. It is another disingenuous argument to claim we have.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

I can’t even think of any “junk science” to defend human meat-eating. There is no evidence that humans need anything that is only gotten from meat. There is no evidence that a diet of more meat is ever better than a diet of less meat for humans. There is no evidence that humans are biologically adapted for any diet that consists of any significant amount of meat. All evidence points to the fact that a diet rich in plant foods is what humans need to eat.

Nobody here has claimed that, BUT there is evidence that some meat in one's diet is healthy. That you're choosing to make it such an extreme argument (diet heavy in meat vs. no meat) is not something I need to defend.

I didn’t ask you to provide the evidence for anything other than what you claimed had been defended by “sound research”. Since you didn’t specify any amount of animal flesh and organs that you believe you can defend humans eating, I thought it would be a good idea to put the issue in terms of the relative binary of “more meat” vs. “less meat”. Which of those two do you think the research best supports for humans?

There is no answer as long as we confine the problem to the materialistic aspect of whether the human body can digest meat or not. It obviously can. It may not be ideal, but the human body can adapt to almost any food.

But that is hardly all there is to the problem. What about the pschological and emotional aspects? People's actions can be understood more from their ideological frame of mind than their materialistic basic needs.

A hunter may insist he is hunting to provide food, (or even for the good of the animals themselves) but in most of the modern world, that is simply a rationalization to cover up their love of killing, which is buried deep in the psyche. It has nothing to do with the need to find food. Their ideas can be dismissed as basically justifications for what they want to do.

And the other, the ones who eat meat because they have always done so, are basically following engrained habits. Not much there to go by either.

So we are left with those who consciously want to understand what is the appropiate way to take care of their nourishment. What place should they give in this search to empathy, love, aggression, understanding, cruelty to animals, suffering and the havoc we cause to the environment with animal husbandry, etc.? These are not just unimportant details. They are based on how they perceive the world and what value they place on those aspects.

The present conscious level of development of humanity in general is very low compared to the few best representatives of humanity. The world we see reflects the values that most people embrace. Not much there to emulate, except the rare few.

There are no fixed guidelines and few role models that those who want to understand can use to decide. It is really up to the individual according to his/her values. According to all their values.

mindis1: If humans were biologically adapted for a diet that consisted of any significant amount of meat, it would be a complete aberration among the apes.

Don't chimps eat meat, even other primates?

Have you read any scholarly books or research about chimps? If not, you should read some of Jane Goodall’s books; she’s written many excellent ones. She’s also just beautiful from the inside out. I got to meet her a couple of years ago. She’s a tiny woman with intelligent animated wrinkles. I felt like a drooling giant standing next to her.

Pan troglodytes (“common chimpanzees”) occasionally fish for termites, eat the occasional grub worm and egg; and, as a group, occasionally chase, corner, kill, dismember a monkey or even pig, and consume a wadge of that animal’s flesh. (A wadge is when they put the flesh in sort of leaf taco and basically suck the juice out of it.) Pan paniscus (“bonobos”), to whom humans are more closely related, are hardly ever seen doing the latter, where another mammal is killed and a wadge is eaten. The whole process seems to be some kind of power thing among Pan troglodytes. Goodall estimates that animal matter (mostly insects and worms) make up about 4-6% of Pan Troglodytes’ diet. It would be less for bonobos. If the average American ate as little meat as chimpanzees do, then the average American would be the picture of robust health. Instead Americans are the picture of dumb fat slovens.

We Humans often ARE rather strangely Cognitively Dissonant on these Questions ...

We in America (mostly) ABHOR the very Idea of eating a cute little "Puppy" but RELISH many other Animals for THEIR Meat ... In Europe, "Horse" Meat is a Delicacy, but in America almost nobody eats it ...

Matters of Taste are not only NOT subject to Debate, they are often mixed-up with conflicting-confusing Emotions ...

There is no answer as long as we confine the problem to the materialistic aspect of whether the human body can digest meat or not. It obviously can. It may not be ideal, but the human body can adapt to almost any food.

But that is hardly all there is to the problem. What about the pschological and emotional aspects? People's actions can be understood more from their ideological frame of mind than their basic needs.

A hunter may insist he is hunting to provide food, (or even for the good of the animals themselves) but in most of the modern world, that is simply a rationalization to cover up their love of killing, which is buried deep in the psyche. It has nothing to do with the need to find food. Their ideas can be dismissed as basically justifications for what they want to do.

And the other, the ones who eat meat because they have always done so, are basically following engrained habits. Not much there to go by either.

So we are left with those who consciously want to understand what is the appropiate way to take care of their nourishment. What place should they give in this search to empathy, love, aggression, understanding, cruelty to animals, suffering and the havoc we cause to the environment with animal husbandry, etc.? These are not just unimportant details. They are based on how they perceive the world and what value they place on those aspects.

The present conscious level of development of humanity is very low compared to the best representatives of humanity. The world we see reflects the values that most people embrace. Not much there to emulate.

There are no fixed guidelines that those who want to understand can use to decide. It is really up to the individual to decide according to his/her values. According to all their values.

If humans were biologically adapted for a diet that consisted of any significant amount of meat, it would be a complete aberration among the apes. Correct?

Incorrect.

Name another Genus in which one of the species (or species) is biologically adapted to a diet of meat-eating while all other members of the Genus are frugivores or foliovores.

I realize that you don't understand what I just said. And I realize that you cannot name any such Genus, because your absurd claim that it wouldn't be an aberration among apes for humans to be biologically adapted to a meat-eating diet is ignorant nonsense. That's why you can't name any such other Genus.

If humans were biologically adapted for a diet that consisted of any significant amount of meat, it would be a complete aberration among the apes. Correct?

Incorrect.

Name another Genus in which one of the species (or species) is biologically adapted to a diet of meat-eating while all other members of the Genus are frugivores or foliovores.

I realize that you don't understand what I just said. And I realize that you cannot name any such Genus, because your absurd claim that it wouldn't be an aberration among apes for humans to be biologically adapted to a meat-eating diet is ignorant nonsense. That's why you can't name any such other Genus.